Sky News admits to hacking e-mail accounts

Sky News, the Murdoch empire's British satellite news station, issued a statement in which it admits to using e-mail hacking on two separate occasions. Sky News has attempted to justify the hacks, claiming that they were in the public interest. However, the Computer Misuse Act, which outlaws interception of e-mails, has no public interest defense.

On both occasions, the hacker was Sky News North of England correspondent Gerard Tubb. He broke into the Yahoo e-mail of "canoe man" John Darwin, who faked his own death to allow his wife, Anne Darwin, to claim a large life insurance settlement. These e-mails were published by Sky News and handed to the police.

Tubb also broke into the e-mail of a suspected pedophile and his wife. Those e-mails were never published or broadcast.

Sky News head John Ryley has defended the hacking, arguing the Darwin e-mails were instrumental in securing convictions for deception for both husband and wife. The broadcaster has specifically attacked the Guardian newspaper, which broke the story. He pointed out that Guardian journalist David Leigh hacked into the phone of an illegal arms dealer, and claimed that it was in the public interest to do so.

The e-mail hacking is the latest in a long string of hacks performed by or on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's British publications. The use of phone hacking—breaking into voicemail accounts by guessing the PINs used to secure them—first came to light in 2005, but the issue garnered little attention or interest as the victims appeared to be celebrities and members of the Royal Family. This changed in July of last year, when the Guardian revealed that the Murdoch-owned News of the World had broken into the voicemail of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. This ultimately triggered the ongoing Leveson inquiry, which is investigating phone hacking and police bribery.

Subsequently, it emerged that other Murdoch publications also engaged in similarly illegal activity. A journalist at The Times broke into the e-mail of an anonymous police blogger "Nightjack," using the information discovered to reveal his name.

The Guardian has also claimed that Sky News' parent company, BSkyB, worked with hackers to crack the encryption system used by rival broadcaster ONdigital. NDS, owned by News International (which, in turn, owns the companies that own Murdoch's UK newspapers), was found to have funded hacking group THOIC ("The House of Ill Compute"), which subsequently distributed cracks for ONdigital's encryption. ONdigital went out of business in 2002.

I love the Guardian sometimes. Watching them brutalize the Murdoch empire is such fine sport. There's something gleefully sadistic about their timing. Whenever Murdoch tries a move you can be sure the Guardian will be there to trip him, and probably get a few kicks in while he's flailing about.

This is all very confusing. The police can't obtain evidence against someone without following the correct protocol (i.e.: the law). So if the people from Sky handed the evidence over to the police, the police should have asked how Sky obtained them. The probably lied about how they obtained them, which is embarrassing for the police service.

Is this Murdoch guy some kind of dictator? I like the way he gets blamed for the actions of his companies. Are they not publicly traded companies?

Companies reap the risk and reward from the actions of their employees. In exchange employees get a stable moderate salary. And the guy at the top, yea, he gets an awesome salary. If the company screws up, he looks bad and ends up paying. If it succeeds, he looks good and buys a Yacht.

Would you prefer that we work in anarcho-syndicalist commune where we elect a leader at a bi-weekly meeting and all of his decisions are subject to a vote of the laborers. A simple majority in internal affairs and a two thirds majority in external affairs?

Is this Murdoch guy some kind of dictator? I like the way he gets blamed for the actions of his companies. Are they not publicly traded companies?

He controls them, both as the CEO of News Corp and his huge ownership share of the same. By extension he controls News Corp's subsidiaries as well. James Murdoch was head of BskyB (owner of Sky News) at the time. BskyB is 40% owned by News Corp (they had to abandon buying the rest due to the scandal). I'm not sure what being publicly traded has to do with anything.

I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives across the pond have also adopted the "ends justify the means" mindset, but I had kinda hoped that our particular brand of lunacy might get diluted in the process.

Is this Murdoch guy some kind of dictator? I like the way he gets blamed for the actions of his companies. Are they not publicly traded companies?

What did you miss the Ars memo? When it is anyone who can be deemed as "right wing" they are an evil specter lurking in the background responsible for every possible wrong doing of an organization.When it is someone on the left, well we need to be more open minded and be careful making assumptions. This explains the great difference afforded GW in Ars articles about surveillance compared to Obama. In the case of the previous administration it was always GW or Cheney lurking in the background. With the current administration it is the "FBI" or "Justice Department" or "The evil Telecos". etc. who are responsible for the nefarious activity.

The same is true of this story. We are going to all pretend no other news organization has ever broken laws investigating stories. If we are forced to admit cases where this has happened, it will be considered a public good. But if News Corp has done it, well Murdoch must have order the hit himself.

The same is true of this story. We are going to all pretend no other news organization has ever broken laws investigating stories. If we are forced to admit cases where this has happened, it will be considered a public good. But if News Corp has done it, well Murdoch must have order the hit himself.

You mean "this story that also describes similar illegal activity performed by a Guardian journalist", right?

Is this Murdoch guy some kind of dictator? I like the way he gets blamed for the actions of his companies. Are they not publicly traded companies?

What did you miss the Ars memo? When it is anyone who can be deemed as "right wing" they are an evil specter lurking in the background responsible for every possible wrong doing of an organization.When it is someone on the left, well we need to be more open minded and be careful making assumptions. This explains the great difference afforded GW in Ars articles about surveillance compared to Obama. In the case of the previous administration it was always GW or Cheney lurking in the background. With the current administration it is the "FBI" or "Justice Department" or "The evil Telecos". etc. who are responsible for the nefarious activity.

The same is true of this story. We are going to all pretend no other news organization has ever broken laws investigating stories. If we are forced to admit cases where this has happened, it will be considered a public good. But if News Corp has done it, well Murdoch must have order the hit himself.

Or, you know, over the past decade we've seen more attacks on civil rights from the right than the left. I mean, I know thast the simple answer and all, but it also appears to be the most accurate, at least from what I've seen....

If the Wikipedia coverage is correct, the appeals court held that she was not entitled to protection as a whistleblower for claiming they were lying, and no ruling was issued on whether the station had an actual right to lie.

Also, assuming I'm not misunderstanding, the case in question involved a station suppressing a news report that could cost them advertisers, not broadcasting actual "lies."

Which is not to say I'm defending Fox/News Corp. There are lots of other things they're guilty of. But when we're talking about distorting the news, it becomes even more important to get the facts correct.

If the Wikipedia coverage is correct, the appeals court held that she was not entitled to protection as a whistleblower for claiming they were lying, and no ruling was issued on whether the station had an actual right to lie.

Also, assuming I'm not misunderstanding, the case in question involved a station suppressing a news report that could cost them advertisers, not broadcasting actual "lies."

Which is not to say I'm defending Fox/News Corp. There are lots of other things they're guilty of. But when we're talking about distorting the news, it becomes even more important to get the facts correct.

The part that people consider to mean that they are legally permitted to lie comes from here:

Quote:

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Granted thats press coverage of the decision, and if its inaccurate I'm open to that, but I don't see any way to read that does not say that Fox can legally lie to its viewers. And in fact it appears that was the basis that they argued it on...

How is breaking the law (Computer Misuse Act 2000) in the benefit of the public interest? What a STUPID and MORONIC thing to say.

Are you talking specifically about this law, or are you making the general argument that "in the public interest" is always a "STUPID" and "MORONIC" justification for law-breaking? If it's the former, then why would it be "STUPID" and "MORONIC" to do so for this particular law? If it's the latter then we're probably never going to agree, because from where I sit, privacy should never be absolute. There are most definitely situations where it's in the public interest for certain information to be made public in defiance of the law. Exposing government corruption, for example.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Granted thats press coverage of the decision, and if its inaccurate I'm open to that, but I don't see any way to read that does not say that Fox can legally lie to its viewers. And in fact it appears that was the basis that they argued it on...

Even it does, though, note that the opinion is from the Florida court of appeals, so it only applies to FOX's actions in that state, not nationwide.

Also Re: being legally allowed to lie in the news: there was a bit of an upset recently about some guy who wrote an essay about a girl's death, and took major liberties with the facts to emphasize artistic literacy and stress the social issues surrounding the death and related deaths. I can hardly believe anyone gave this guy crap after this Fox debacle.

Is this Murdoch guy some kind of dictator? I like the way he gets blamed for the actions of his companies. Are they not publicly traded companies?

What did you miss the Ars memo? When it is anyone who can be deemed as "right wing" they are an evil specter lurking in the background responsible for every possible wrong doing of an organization.When it is someone on the left, well we need to be more open minded and be careful making assumptions. This explains the great difference afforded GW in Ars articles about surveillance compared to Obama. In the case of the previous administration it was always GW or Cheney lurking in the background. With the current administration it is the "FBI" or "Justice Department" or "The evil Telecos". etc. who are responsible for the nefarious activity.

The same is true of this story. We are going to all pretend no other news organization has ever broken laws investigating stories. If we are forced to admit cases where this has happened, it will be considered a public good. But if News Corp has done it, well Murdoch must have order the hit himself.

I wonder why Fox News is not under the gun on this side of the pond. Considering the pattern of behavior by News Corp. in England, it would be prudent to look at their operations here. All I know is that I would certainly fell justified in assaulting any person who illegally hacked into my personal data with extreme prejudice.

On another front, the press regularly skirts or breaks the rules of behavior that police organizations are required to follow to get at a story in the public interest. When any reporter works undercover they have to misrepresent themselves and their purpose to that organization. The examples are too numerous to cite; however, how many truths would still be hidden about the abuse of various organizations without such dangerous work going all the way back to Nellie Bly. I am also certain many journalists have paid with their lives for doing such work.

If the Wikipedia coverage is correct, the appeals court held that she was not entitled to protection as a whistleblower for claiming they were lying, and no ruling was issued on whether the station had an actual right to lie.

Also, assuming I'm not misunderstanding, the case in question involved a station suppressing a news report that could cost them advertisers, not broadcasting actual "lies."

Which is not to say I'm defending Fox/News Corp. There are lots of other things they're guilty of. But when we're talking about distorting the news, it becomes even more important to get the facts correct.

The part that people consider to mean that they are legally permitted to lie comes from here:

Quote:

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Granted thats press coverage of the decision, and if its inaccurate I'm open to that, but I don't see any way to read that does not say that Fox can legally lie to its viewers. And in fact it appears that was the basis that they argued it on...

Actually, the ruling that it was a "policy" doesn't appear to have had anything to do with the question of whether it was legal to violate a policy as opposed to a law, rule, or regulation. Rather, it was a loophole in the whistleblowers law -- that law only protected whistleblowers who report violations in laws, rules, or regulations, but not policies. If it were ruled that they violated FCC policy, they still could have (potentially) gotten their license pulled.

There's no question that this was still a pretty sleazy thing to do, but it's still not really a "right to lie" decision.